Originally posted to https://plus.google.com/115428061756618732805/posts/HfRBWT5oF3q

*Still Goodbye, Google+*
(This is a follow-up to "Goodbye, Google+" http://peterkaminski.com/goodbye-google-plus)
Okay, after a weekend of reading comments on Google+ and cogitating, here's the deal:
*It's not about pseudonyms. It is simply about the way Google is treating people.*
(This is a refinement of what I said in my previous post, where I wrote, "operation of the Names Policy" instead of "the way Google is treating people." But I am talking about the same thing in both posts.)
Perhaps you've heard: Google has arbitrarily suspended the Google+ accounts of a number of people, for no other reason than using their common name as their name on Google+.
This has little to do with pseudonyms -- which, as you may know, are false names that people use to mask their true identity. In fact, it is easy to sign up and use Google+ with a pseudonym _without_ being suspended, because Google does not do strict checking of identity as people sign up. The Names Policy helpfully guides those who would use a pseudonym in how to choose a name that seems "real" enough to fit in.
I can attest to these arbitrary suspensions happening to a couple people I know personally -- exceptionally fine, upstanding and wonderful people, as it happens.
My friends attest that it has also happened to at least a couple more people they know personally. There seem to be many more, outside my circle of friends and extended circle of friends, although I cannot personally attest about those people or their characters.
I can imagine this happening very infrequently, by accident. But it seems to be happening much more than that.
For those people to whom I have a personal connection, by "common name," I mean the name that everyone calls them in real life. The name that everyone knows them by, in real life. But in Google's reading of their Google+ Names Policy, my friends' real names are not "real" enough.
*Google doesn't want my friends using Google+ unless they use a more "real" name than their real name.*
So my friends have gotten their accounts suspended.
Now of course, having your Google+ account suspended (along with certain other Google services which may be affected along with Google+) is not the end of the world. It's an imposition somewhere between a mix-up on your order at the coffee shop, and a mix-up on your phone bill or at the IRS. If you play nice by Google's interpretation of their rules and use a different name that's "real" enough, they generally reinstate your account.
But is this the message that Google wants to send its users? That their real names aren't real enough?
Is that the message they want to send to me?
I'm sorry, but Google's actions here make me feel unwelcome. Enough that I am leaving.
(By the way, my sympathies and condolences to the Google+ system designers and builders in this matter. I have high respect and admiration for what you've built. As a sharing tool, Google+ is a thing of beauty, which I truly love. It's just the "suspending random users arbitrarily" thing that I have a problem with.)
If I were a Google community manager, or a Google board member, or a Google founder, counting up the number of innocent casualties in the nymwars, I would be ashamed of Google and its handling of the Google+ Names Policy.
I would have Google, perhaps in the person of @107117483540235115863 or @113116318008017777871, apologize publicly to those so affected, saying perhaps that it was beta growing pains. I would offer those users so affected some nice token of apology, if they'd take it, like a shiny new Android phone or a Chromebook. And I would pledge to do my best not to treat my users like system abusers, for doing nothing more than using their common name.
Google has done nothing of the sort. The latest update was that they'd give you four days notice before suspending your Google+ account, so you could tidy up and make your name more "real."
Please note that I have *not* said here that I condone bad behavior, of the sort that some people expect when others use pseudonyms. I believe there should be strong policies and procedures that quickly identify and suspend bad actors. I have no problem with that -- and in fact, I expect it as a normal part of running a social service, as long as the number of false positives is very low.
But that's not what's happening. The number of false positives is unacceptably high. Google has had a couple of weeks to figure this out, to apologize, to make it right, to do something positive for the Google+ culture, instead of negative. They have not.
Google, please clean up your act. Right now it stinks.
Yours truly,
Peter Kaminski
/cc @106189723444098348646

Okay, after a weekend of reading comments on Google+ and cogitating, here's the deal:

It's not about pseudonyms. It is simply about the way Google is treating people.

(This is a refinement of what I said in my previous post, where I wrote, "operation of the Names Policy" instead of "the way Google is treating people." But I am talking about the same thing in both posts.)

Perhaps you've heard: Google has arbitrarily suspended the Google+ accounts of a number of people, for no other reason than using their common name as their name on Google+.

This has little to do with pseudonyms -- which, as you may know, are false names that people use to mask their true identity. In fact, it is easy to sign up and use Google+ with a pseudonym without being suspended, because Google does not do strict checking of identity as people sign up. The Names Policy helpfully guides those who would use a pseudonym in how to choose a name that seems "real" enough to fit in.

I can attest to these arbitrary suspensions happening to a couple people I know personally -- exceptionally fine, upstanding and wonderful people, as it happens.

My friends attest that it has also happened to at least a couple more people they know personally. There seem to be many more, outside my circle of friends and extended circle of friends, although I cannot personally attest about those people or their characters.

I can imagine this happening very infrequently, by accident. But it seems to be happening much more than that.

For those people to whom I have a personal connection, by "common name," I mean the name that everyone calls them in real life. The name that everyone knows them by, in real life. But in Google's reading of their Google+ Names Policy, my friends' real names are not "real" enough.

Google doesn't want my friends using Google+ unless they use a more "real" name than their real name.

So my friends have gotten their accounts suspended.

Now of course, having your Google+ account suspended (along with certain other Google services which may be affected along with Google+) is not the end of the world. It's an imposition somewhere between a mix-up on your order at the coffee shop, and a mix-up on your phone bill or at the IRS. If you play nice by Google's interpretation of their rules and use a different name that's "real" enough, they generally reinstate your account.

But is this the message that Google wants to send its users? That their real names aren't real enough?

(By the way, my sympathies and condolences to the Google+ system designers and builders in this matter. I have high respect and admiration for what you've built. As a sharing tool, Google+ is a thing of beauty, which I truly love. It's just the "suspending random users arbitrarily" thing that I have a problem with.)

If I were a Google community manager, or a Google board member, or a Google founder, counting up the number of innocent casualties in the nymwars, I would be ashamed of Google and its handling of the Google+ Names Policy.

I would have Google, perhaps in the person of +Vic Gundotra or +Bradley Horowitz, apologize publicly to those so affected, saying perhaps that it was beta growing pains. I would offer those users so affected some nice token of apology, if they'd take it, like a shiny new Android phone or a Chromebook. And I would pledge to do my best not to treat my users like system abusers, for doing nothing more than using their common name.

Google has done nothing of the sort. The latest update was that they'd give you four days notice before suspending your Google+ account, so you could tidy up and make your name more "real."

Please note that I have not said here that I condone bad behavior, of the sort that some people expect when others use pseudonyms. I believe there should be strong policies and procedures that quickly identify and suspend bad actors. I have no problem with that -- and in fact, I expect it as a normal part of running a social service, as long as the number of false positives is very low.

But that's not what's happening. The number of false positives is unacceptably high. Google has had a couple of weeks to figure this out, to apologize, to make it right, to do something positive for the Google+ culture, instead of negative. They have not.

z12acn0inkadcnnv323fjp1q1vn4f1oiz04:1313432780713000Tejas Richard111731578349856195951Peter, you have my support. I am most frustrated by the lack of communication or addressing of concerns. To be honest, concerned doesn't describe it, I am angry. And the depth to which I have integrated Google into my life makes me reluctant to leave. It is frustrating, to say the least. Aug 15, 2011Aug 15, 2011

Plain-text version below has additional comments not captured in the Google Takeout version above

Peter Kaminski - 12:02 AM (edited) - Public

Still Goodbye, Google+

(Permalink for this post is http://peterkaminski.com/still-goodbye-google-plus -- it will presumably disappear from Google+ on August 15th.)

Okay, after a weekend of reading comments on Google+ and cogitating, here's the deal:

It's not about pseudonyms. It is simply about the way Google is treating people.

(This is a refinement of what I said in my previous post, where I wrote, "operation of the Names Policy" instead of "the way Google is treating people." But I am talking about the same thing in both posts.)

Perhaps you've heard: Google has arbitrarily suspended the Google+ accounts of a number of people, for no other reason than using their common name as their name on Google+.

This has little to do with pseudonyms -- which, as you may know, are false names that people use to mask their true identity. In fact, it is easy to sign up and use Google+ with a pseudonym without being suspended, because Google does not do strict checking of identity as people sign up. The Names Policy helpfully guides those who would use a pseudonym in how to choose a name that seems "real" enough to fit in.

I can attest to these arbitrary suspensions happening to a couple people I know personally -- exceptionally fine, upstanding and wonderful people, as it happens.

My friends attest that it has also happened to at least a couple more people they know personally. There seem to be many more, outside my circle of friends and extended circle of friends, although I cannot personally attest about those people or their characters.

I can imagine this happening very infrequently, by accident. But it seems to be happening much more than that.

For those people to whom I have a personal connection, by "common name," I mean the name that everyone calls them in real life. The name that everyone knows them by, in real life. But in Google's reading of their Google+ Names Policy, my friends' real names are not "real" enough.

Google doesn't want my friends using Google+ unless they use a more "real" name than their real name.

So my friends have gotten their accounts suspended.

Now of course, having your Google+ account suspended (along with certain other Google services which may be affected along with Google+) is not the end of the world. It's an imposition somewhere between a mix-up on your order at the coffee shop, and a mix-up on your phone bill or at the IRS. If you play nice by Google's interpretation of their rules and use a different name that's "real" enough, they generally reinstate your account.

But is this the message that Google wants to send its users? That their real names aren't real enough?

(By the way, my sympathies and condolences to the Google+ system designers and builders in this matter. I have high respect and admiration for what you've built. As a sharing tool, Google+ is a thing of beauty, which I truly love. It's just the "suspending random users arbitrarily" thing that I have a problem with.)

If I were a Google community manager, or a Google board member, or a Google founder, counting up the number of innocent casualties in the nymwars, I would be ashamed of Google and its handling of the Google+ Names Policy.

I would have Google, perhaps in the person of +Vic Gundotra or +Bradley Horowitz, apologize publicly to those so affected, saying perhaps that it was beta growing pains. I would offer those users so affected some nice token of apology, if they'd take it, like a shiny new Android phone or a Chromebook. And I would pledge to do my best not to treat my users like system abusers, for doing nothing more than using their common name.

Google has done nothing of the sort. The latest update was that they'd give you four days notice before suspending your Google+ account, so you could tidy up and make your name more "real."

Please note that I have not said here that I condone bad behavior, of the sort that some people expect when others use pseudonyms. I believe there should be strong policies and procedures that quickly identify and suspend bad actors. I have no problem with that -- and in fact, I expect it as a normal part of running a social service, as long as the number of false positives is very low.

But that's not what's happening. The number of false positives is unacceptably high. Google has had a couple of weeks to figure this out, to apologize, to make it right, to do something positive for the Google+ culture, instead of negative. They have not.

Tejas Richard - Peter, you have my support. I am most frustrated by the lack of communication or addressing of concerns. To be honest, concerned doesn't describe it, I am angry. And the depth to which I have integrated Google into my life makes me reluctant to leave. It is frustrating, to say the least.

11:26 AM

Jon Pincus - Well said. Let's hope that people at Google read it and take it to heart.